Scheveningen

Lifting the ban as per the "lift upon appeal immediately" clause placed by Skull132.

Needs to not be permanent. I'd prefer it lasting from anywhere between 15-20 minutes. If it's on a corpse, though, it should be permanent in order to disguise bodies.

The previous rendition of "Insulting an Officer" was removed from regulations due to the amount of abuse in many situations, officers would slap hooliganism, some other charges and insulting an officer just to add more brig time to a character. Officers are supposed to have thick skin emotionally and practically speaking; vague regulations are vague on purpose so they are flexible enough to cover situations that would otherwise be edge cases. But we otherwise don't need it. Putting a person into the brig for 10 minutes longer is not going to really help in correcting the behavior in the future.

>weird dude wearing balaclava, chaplain robes, latex gloves, a tool belt and a very suspicious black duffel bag and no ID standing in the hallway >officer asks the dude to show his ID >"fuck off it's code green respect my privacy" You might want to ask yourself that question one more time and see if you can come up with an answer to it. You know that you're the person that needs to defend their reasoning for this suggestion, not them, right?

Why the heck did you file it, then? Closing upon request.

Not that we don't care, but the OP was asked to use the format for the sake of their complaint. Lack of adherence to super basic procedure: No bueno. If this isn't changed the complaint might be closed prematurely.

The assumption is that you use your noggin and read the rules, and understand what applications of said rules would get you into trouble. There are some people who have played on this server for two to three years that have never actually broken a rule, most likely because they actually bothered to ask questions before doing things, which makes them worse off if they don't because the consequences for doing said actions are a lot less foreseeable compared if you actually asked the question.

As if IPC security wasn't stupid enough to deal with.

Experiences with the same ban evader over and over again isn't exactly adequate reason to want the second chef slot removed. I'm going to say no, pretty much for the same reasons why it's bad to ever condense the amount of slots for any job unless it's absolutely necessary.

We rarely, if ever, appeal daybans, should probably note for the record. Should take the day off as free time to think about things, maybe try out another server for a bit and get some perspective, then come back whenever the ban wears off. Never a good idea to countermand what staff tell you to do, by the way.

me over voip: "please don't en mass join as kell-" what they do after im asleep "WE KELL-WOKE"

Borgs on Baystation can cuff without needing a grab, unlike humanoids who do.

This is the full ban reason, mate: alberyk has permabanned joelj. - Reason: Ghosting as an antag after being captured by security, you had a long history of similar behavior - This is a permanent ban.

Allow me to paraphrase then. "I do not believe people can function together in harmony." "I never get political until I inevitably, inject politics into discussions as a form of allegorical example." "I am socially repulsive not because I choose to be, but in spite of that I do not take responsibility for my social failings and I do not make concerted efforts to improve and change the way I socialize with other human beings, I just say I do and pretend I'm not being manipulative, because that is the way I am." That and the most recent post are why I'm maintaining a new stance of not taking anything Nanako has to say seriously because the constant contradictions that stem from her make it incredibly difficult to find any degree of honesty coming from this person. I believe Nanako is, at the very least, not a sincere person and is seemingly more disposable than any other member on the dev team because of her manipulative and anti-social tendencies, causing a great deal of grief to not just dev staff but to the unfortunate individuals that have to deal with a 26 year old individual acting half her age. Despite the stance I hold as a "completely screen out anything ridiculous they have to say" placeholder, I am convinced that it is more dangerous for the long-term integrity of the development team to keep Nanako on. The busfactor of other hard-working individuals such as Lohikar and Fowl, two specific individuals that butt heads with Nanako regularly on development decisions, are much exponentially higher than the very person claiming to be a victim in this complaint right now as I knew she would. I am fairly certain it would be better off long-term to dismiss the problem development staff member from the team rather than letting this sit for a month to be dropped, ignored and the status quo to be pushed onward. If there is any doubt that would make the point that Nanako is more valuable than the long-term sanity and will to continue being a development staff member on this team for anyone who isn't Nanako, I would highly suggest Skull make his rebuttal as to why he thinks it's a good idea to keep this person on the team. I'm really curious as to what's keeping him.

No shit, you were absent. He had to fix what was wrong with your code! All he did was fix your grammar and increased both power efficiency and its ability to warm up so it doesn't take fifteen minutes for the cook to do his/her/xer job. That's like, multiple amazing changes! Why would you be opposed to that? And if Lohikar's other comments are of any indication, you seem to be responsible for a fair bit of the recent spaghetti code. Even Moondancer was performing more meaningful changes with less inherent experience and time with a development team, majorly because Moondancer was at least six times more cooperative with their peers! They received the hilariously apt nickname of Budget Nanako for the full time Nanako was not actually present. So it seems Skull was wrong and Nanako's busfactor value is not that high as he was implying, now is it? Nanako is only being apologetic now because there is the very real threat she could be removed from staff, and I'm pretty sure that scares her more than what the dev team either internally or externally thinks of her.

Note this suggestion does not bring up issues about CT shuttles as that is covered by a rule we're supposed to enforce. Emergency shuttles are not covered by that rule. 1.) As of now, anyone with access to an emag and a command and comms board can spam recall emergency shuttles with impunity. It's extremely hard to hunt down said consoles without any initial indication where. 2.) This also (probably, not sure if this was fixed in the modular laptop update) applies to laptops with command and comms modules. Solutions: 1.) Print out general area locations whenever a shuttle is called/recalled to provide consequence for these sorts of behaviors. Game-design and IC-sense wise, it is probably for the best. This permits the crew to investigate and doesn't make an antagonist with a recall shuttle function completely invisible and untrackable to any degree of counterplay. 2.) Remove the ability for command laptops to call/recall a shuttle, if this does not already exist. Whether it's a matter of theft or a head of staff accidentally abandoning their laptop in an open place, it's not good practice to allow laptops to have the penultimate Key-To-The-Castle functions such as being able to call a shuttle or recall it.

Not sure if anyone knows, but during the malfunction game mode Central Command cannot send direct messages to the station due to the premise that the malfunctioning AI has cut off comms. As such the CCIAA cannot respond during the AI malfunction round-type to any faxes or emergency reports. Part of the unique interaction is that malf AI basically intercepts communications, thus the crew of the station is on their own to deal with a malf AI going loud. ERT is pretty OP in the right hands, I've no need to say why, but they're especially strong against an antagonist that almost never moves without help from a borg and is holed up in one location. It's also very easy to simply cripple an AI by throwing two EMP grenades within the general vicinity of the AI's APC and the SMES next to it. This goes the same for the new map, probably not as easy but it's much safer than usual to take on the AI if you're using EMP grenades, as you can kill it from EVA where it cannot see you rather than from any angle of the bridge. It's p much an oversight that we even allow it. Disabling ERT would force the crew to approach the issue of the malfunctioning AI with a more hands-on approach.

Then allow me to respond to him in full since I'm evidently obligated to by your own assessment. Frankly, Nikov, while intent is absolutely important as part of my job in making judgements on most cases, there is an extent to which the defense "I intended for something different from the outcome" becomes much inherently weaker based on how malicious the means of pursuing that end were inevitably used. There are, yes, some cases were good outcomes can excuse the wrongs used to attain it. And yet, ideally, it is necessary to make a concerted effort to ensure both the outcome and the means to attain it are both equally justified. No one should ever make it a point to do otherwise in common situations. The discussion being undertaken in the PR was simple. Nanako made their case. Fowl and Alberyk made their opposing cases. Nanako voiced their incredulity and then effectively just threw their hands up and claimed Fowl/Alberyk were being obstacles specifically to screw with Nanako. Cue the absolutely unnecessary argument afterward, but with Fowl driving a good point that the issue with Nanako's defensive nature being as prevalent as it is. Regardless of what Skull has said in terms of me not having current access to #developers, this still doesn't change what I've been told already that this was a sort of cycle of development in-fighting that occurred on a regular basis within dev staff channels, prior to their hiatus. I want to put trust in Skull's assessment that it is not Nanako's fault alone that this sort of dev staff conflict is ongoing. Certainly, I can believe that, what with the butterfly effect being well-substantiated in many social and natural scenarios. The problem, unfortunately, is frequency and severity of problems being created by this person's presence on staff and their dealings with their team and other community members. Call me biased, Skull, but do you really expect me to be so naive and pretend that when problems occur and are created by certain people, that I'm supposed to just... what, shut up and reassess the situation to what it isn't, because Nanako is too valuable for you to lose right now? Does the idea of firing people being toxic and awful to other people, regardless of their value to the team, screw with your moral compass? I have already held off this sort of complaint for a fairly long time. The timing could not have been better, no, this is definitely a headache to drop on your desk to deal with. But, consider: Nanako immediately returns from their hiatus and starts a hissy-fit on the public github where everyone can see the coderbus gagefight unfold. Even after, I assume, you've had to speak with this person on your team at least twice to screw their head on and stop being stupid. Fine, sure. I imagine they were dealt with. In a manner nobody but you and Nanako is able to see in terms of what kind of a leash is being worn. So, Nanako's only excuse they have right now is that they were conveniently drunk and don't recall effectively every scenario I've cited where they've been a complete asshole picking fights with other people? This could be true or untrue, but it's still bull-crap as a defense and does them worse. You two see why I was poking at the vice thing? Because it's still pretty unreasonable to suggest people can't be held accountable for something just because they drink alcohol sometimes. That is why that defense does not work. It is rarely ever necessary to be a bulldozer, Hayden. Since you claimed I was one, take this as perspective: You only need to push when other people aren't aware they need to be pulling. There are times when it's appropriate, and where it is absolutely not. It is about proper timing, handling and a dash of finesse, and doing the right thing for the right reasons as much as you can. I can't stress enough how important it is to be using the right tools for the job. Mistakes can be rather disastrous. I'm know you have good intentions and you hate to see Mum and Dad fight, and it is admirable to see you but in regardless to defend the idea of moderate common sense here, but I've enough exposure with the crap I had to put up with Nanako in more than just a few instances to recognize that any attempt at a peace offering being issued now, barely constitutes as a sincere enough apology for me to immediately forgive them for each their failings in conversations. The line in the sand was drawn more than a couple times now and I'll admit I'm getting a bit sick of the lack of inherent interest in someone not wanting to deal with it. I was around even for the times when Nanako was a generally ok and nice person, and any of the controversies that surround them now would've been baffling to hear if we went back in time and told people that's what they'd be like. I would be crucified if we jumped to past and I had to tell people that. Nanako was very sweet, and despite her impression and perhaps the impression of others, she was not the reason I left. When I initially left to run a kitchen and pursue academia, Nanako wasn't even half as aggressive, belligerent and overtly political as they are now. I'm very curious as to what caused this. I'm not going to flatter myself in relation to the topic of empathy, but if I was uninvolved and someone else in Nanako's position was doing the things she's known for now, I'd go and figure out what the problem is and put an end to it. Hopefully not by any means necessary, but when someone responsible for oversight chooses not to do any meaningful oversight because they believe being forgiving is the way to deal with hostile community attitudes, it really begins to disrupt my moral compass. As usual, it is up to Skull to decide whether he wishes to do anything.

I personally don't mind if some kats are still within a certain RGB spectrum of targeted colors for variety's sake. The difference between two catfolks could be as simple as light beige or dark beige. Obviously if some cats look ridiculous with their color and it's not even lore supported/doesn't make sense for a fur coat to look a certain color, we can speak to folks to simply correct the issue and we'll pass it around the chain for Mofo to hear. Orange looks bad tho. remov.

You will note every staff complaint save one was still ruled in the favor that the decision I made was valid. The single mistake I made was taking bait from another upset player in a complaint and posting a mocking image macro in reply to their attempt at bait. As they always have, any member of the community has the invested right to open a complaint on anyone they wish for any reason and it will be reviewed accordingly. I believe in justice and moral adherence to the rules, as abiding by those helps shape better interactions between players. Understandably, people get pissed when they feel targeted, people also get pissed when they get caught, and others are given the personal impression they can get away with doing things for the wrong reasons and claim they had a different reason in contradiction for the severity of the action being taken. They have a right to be pissed, but that by itself does not make them right. Having a vice that directly affects a person's judgement and how one person treats other people is actually a heavy point of why I'm still maintaining my continued position of prosecution. If this was as simple as Nanako being in a frustrated state and needing to simply being told off for the absolute final time, then this issue would be as good as resolved by now and I would not ask for anything further beyond accountability. This issue with Nanako's behavior is now proportionally much more complex to deal with because it ends up boiling down to a person being physically and mentally unable to regulate their own personal filters because they're engaging in a dangerous vice. If they cannot moderate themselves in consumption of alcohol and they do something under the influence, they should be held responsible regardless. As they do in real life, by the will and whole of the law. Likewise, if your drunk self goes out to pick stupid fights with other people don't be surprised when people are calling for you to be held responsible as soon as you sober.

Wow. Among all of the things that could've been admitted I didn't think Nanako would admit to being an alcohol abuser. This stretches into extremely sad territory that would've been more adequately explained as not knowing how to communicate with people, but this evidently boils down to an even worse situation. . Do you honestly expect people to not be offended when you go out of your way to insult them? Do you expect people to just put up with the constant harassment, disparaging comments, purposeful racism and other things I will not post multiple paragraphs about twice? I care not for your wide range of accomplishments, as that is not the crux of the issue here and Skull has already informed you that you churning out PRs like a good soldier is not the problem. It is that you, apparently, have a very hard time getting along with anyone and you will get incredibly vitriolic and it is you that will not give an inch. You will not apologize for anything unless not apologizing for it would be an end to your position here on the server. You never hold yourself accountable. You never accept responsibility. You never give anymore than a half-hearted non-apology. You act vile and go out of your way to argue with people over inane unimportant crap. The second note is particularly reflected in our discussions with you on how to actually roleplay properly as a low-importance rodent. I don't give a fuck about what Fowl does, if I had a problem with Fowl I would talk to him to resolve it, and failing that, the complaint would be about him. This is about you. You should be flattered for once that I raise an issue that is entirely centric around you for once, for often you seem to struggle to inject yourself and your very important opinions into most subjects. My problem is that you effectively act like a bad person on purpose, whether for irony's sake or not this remains to be seen. But it is outright disturbing to hear that your only excuse for any of this is that you are a chronic alcohol abuser and this is what happens when you have too much to drink. I was a corrections academy cadet for a short time before graduating, and having dealt with many such cases dealing with people on parole and rehab because of booze, it depresses me to hear that a staff member here is within the early stages of overcoming alcohol abuse. In spite of that, I can only empathize for an abuser of the bottle so much, especially since I have absolutely no idea how to judge when you're piss-drunk or just being Nanako, contrasting with real people I dealt with whom I could smell the stench on their breath. Once again, the accountability factor becomes much harder to enforce in this case if we just let go anything you say you did under the influence. I'm going to have to see past it. Regardless as to whether you've been a characteristic irresponsible person under an amount of inebriation that would, evidently, not only affect your already poor ability to have intelligent discourse without turning it into an argument, as outlined in that PR for example, it would appear you should have to be held accountable whether you're a chronic drunk or not. It absolutely stuns me to hear that the dev team were effectively able to be better off working with Nanako away on forced hiatus due to technical issues. There are very few cases where losing a person to not be able to work with the rest of the team is actually better for the team as a whole, and I've been in the unfortunate position to have to fire people who were not fit for working as part of a team before. I've had to make these decisions before, and it's fallen to me to take a lot of heat for making the toughest ones. It is no small thing to remove someone from an active team, but it ends up boiling down to whether the good of them staying on the team outweighs the multitude of character flaws they inherently possess. There is always a right way to do things. I will not accept a member of dev staff imagining themselves as a bulldozer, as the worst image comes to mind in the form of a completely inebriated individual operating an industrial C.A.T. shouting obscenities to those on the ground and wildly piloting the vehicle. And this is not a good image to have. Staff members are not expected to be bulldozers. Not even I, as a moderator with their own style of doing things, imagine themselves as an unstoppable, confrontational force. I am not so deluded to think that is the right way to be doing anything. The one thing I learned as a team leader in the past, is that cooperation trumps confrontation until it is clear that cooperation will fail. I'm not convinced by any of Nanako's recent excuses. I will be adamant in maintaining this complaint.

[mention]Skull132[/mention] can i save this???

Another thing. Another administrator who commented privately inquired if I would like to see prime examples of anti-social encounters between Nanako and other server staff. The complaint is largely to seek discipline on a staff member. Not a crucifixion. But if other people demand evidence or if other staff members or players would like to contribute their experiences with this staff member I would implore them to post. The majority of the administrators (and some of the moderators) are, for example, well aware of this particular instance: While I'm sure context would be helpful to better define what this kerfluffle was about, I'm starting to wonder whether Nanako would be better off if the context wasn't explained, as I'm certain there's not much that can be said to excuse the outburst. Telling a fellow coder to fuck off is one thing, telling head staff to fuck themselves sideways is absolutely another. If these were isolated incidents I would not be addressing them, as everyone has a bad day, sure. I'm not sure what to say for someone who seems to have a bad day everyday. I would rather not get even remotely started on the "hispanics are a plague" comment in pol-trashcan, as that is politics I am absolutely not interested in hearing excuses for. But if that wasn't indicative that Nanako has a serious inhibition with either critical or moral judgement, then I would say the eye of the beholder may have very low standards for intelligent discourse.

Did you know? We have a github to report bugs! If features are working aside from their intended vision by the developer who coded it, all of your reports should go yonder! You post an issue with a mildly descriptive title, and then a description detailing how to reproduce it (unless it's gamebreaking and should be communicated directly to a coder if they ask how to do it after you submit the PR)! Coders will fix the most glaring bugs as soon as they can. Naturally, don't be this guy! This guy's methodology was the effective equivalent of sharting a square-like turd into a person's mailbox and calling it an official correspondence.

Title. Not much needs to be said, we have a full staff roster 24/7 and there's little actual reason to force a restart.